• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

The Real Reason Why Bands Play the Same Old Tired Covers

#101
DWBass said:
Disclaimer: I am a certified cover band musician playing mostly R&B, Soul, Funk, Disco, Motown and other Top40 pop music.

Obscure to me means not charted. It's gotta be familiar to the masses. Sometimes a song may have charted but it's just not a great song to perform. Example: A band I was in, the BL wanted to do 'Lost In Music' by Chic instead of a more familiar tune like 'We Are Family', He's The Greatest Dancer' or 'I Want Your Love'! Why 'Lost In Music'? I just didn't get it. We played it a few times and folks just looked at us! We ended up learning and playing the others I mentioned and the floor stayed packed. Know your demographic and don't try to force music on them expecting them to like it.

Just my opinion and from over 40 years experience as a cover band musician.
Click to expand...
In cover/bar band territory I would agree "obscure" means "uncharted"
The people there - most of whom have come to drink and socialize (sorry to break it to everyone) DON'T want you/us to educated them on music - they want to hear stuff they know and like. And while I agree that much of what has charted over the years is pure sh****, it is not for me to tell the people what they like. The charts are very much a "non-musician likability scale" and you can't (and shouldn't) fight it. If you want to have "integrity" and play what you want, then go start an originals band and create a following that wants to hear what you like, or play parties with your friends who most likely share your tastes, otherwise, serve the audience.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DWBass
#102
Dudes...I played in a Rush cover band (still do but kinda on hiatus).

Even with the license to play any obscure tune from any era, we were stuck playing Tom Sawyer, Limelight and Spirit of Radio every f'ing gig.

So, while those "staples" would always be there, we could add Mission, the Anarchist, the Pass...

All went over well and the targeted audience appreciated that. But we always HAD TO play the played out songs.

What really bugged me was that we would spend most of our rehearsal time going over those relatively easy songs instead of the more intricate and interesting ones. This was because our singer always had trouble with those and wouldn't bother with the more instrumental ones.

The drummer and I would have to get together separately to work out all the sampling triggers and midi transitions. That's the thought part.

Playing out covers can be fun when it's interesting stuff. But you can still get burned out on the most challenging stuff.
 
#103
buldog5151bass said:
It all depends. In my modern coutry band, we have a sheet for people to list songs they want us to play (or learn if we don't know it). Guess what song has been requested at EVERY gig? Wagon Wheel. Guess what song we just added to the playlist, over my gritted teeth?
Click to expand...

You make a valid point. Wagon Wheel was released in 2013, ergo modern tune. Mustang Sally released in 1965 and became pop hit in 1966. Sally is close to 20 years older than the average age of my audiences. it is extremely rare if they request a tune from the sixties or seventies.
 
#104
I think we are mixing two issues:

1. Standards/chestnuts that cover bands end up doing, just like the Stones are still playing them when they tour. You may not like it, but you gotta play to the audience, not at them.

2. Whether or not you are playing them, you need to keep learning new stuff. There are some cover bands where I am (who gig regularly) who have been playing the same setlist for a decade. I won't name names. There are few of us (very few of us) who are making a significant part of their net income on cover music. There is no excuse to keep learning new songs - keeps the act fresh for you and the audience.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ronzo
#105
jive1 said:
I get what you're saying, and I would agree that today's payscale makes it less motivating to put in the work, especially when your limited time conflicts with the job that puts food on the table. But, I've also seen this happen on gigs where guys are getting paid $3-400 a gig, and to me that is an amount worth putting a little time to, especially if want another gig that pays that amount again. 40-50 songs is fine for a bar band, but it won't cut it for bigger money gigs like weddings and corporates.
Click to expand...
This is one of my pet peeves. I don't care how much a gig pays, if you don't think it's worth giving your best effort, don't take it. I hate when people say, "It's only [fill in the blank] club, it's no big deal." It's a big deal to the people who are paying their hard earned money to see you play. Don't half-ass a gig because it doesn't pay what you want; give it to someone who will do a good job.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ronzo
#106
smogg said:
You make a valid point. Wagon Wheel was released in 2013, ergo modern tune. Mustang Sally released in 1965 and became pop hit in 1966. Sally is close to 20 years older than the average age of my audiences. it is extremely rare if they request a tune from the sixties or seventies.
Click to expand...
Hence, know your demographic. I'm not playing Mustang Sally to a 35 and under audience. That's why a cover band has to learn 100's of songs both older and newer. Partner up with a DJ who knows what's hot. Do your homework! I think this is where the laziness comes in for many bands!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ronzo
#107
buldog5151bass said:
I think we are mixing two issues:

1. Standards/chestnuts that cover bands end up doing, just like the Stones are still playing them when they tour. You may not like it, but you gotta play to the audience, not at them.

2. Whether or not you are playing them, you need to keep learning new stuff. There are some cover bands where I am (who gig regularly) who have been playing the same setlist for a decade. I won't name names. There are few of us (very few of us) who are making a significant part of their net income on cover music. There is no excuse to keep learning new songs - keeps the act fresh for you and the audience.
Click to expand...
I agree. I'm subbing for a band who plays the same stuff gig after gig for the last 10 years or more. Save for a few new tunes I heard them play last time I saw them. I know their set cold without a need for a rehearsal!
 
#112
Mike Sorr said:
Of course, there is this to consider:

music_set6.jpg
Click to expand...

While witty, there is no basis for this theory. The Boomers solidly and vociferously rejected the music of their parents, but when their children do the same thing they tell them "you don't know good music." That hypocritical dog won't hunt. I get there will never be another Beatles, not because they were that good but because its been done; you can't have an epic shift in a style of music like that more than once. Jimi Hendrix changed the game of guitar playing, but is NOT the be all end of all guitar players. I'll go a step further and say Jaco was a very good bass player, but he isn't the end of the bass nor has he set the tone for all bass playing.
Here's the deal: When you are a certain age, the music you hear at that age when you are "growing up" is what is good to you. So no, it isn't that my music sucks, you really are old.

As to how this relates to the OP, there is a real problem with the fact newer music doesn't reach all audiences. After the initial break of "rock" into the mainstream it diversified into increasingly niche groups. Its easy to agree on the Zeppelin, the Beatles, the Who, Rolling Stones, Kinks, Heart, etc because by today's standards they are vanilla, simple, and easy listening. Pop became more electronic, which doesn't work well for live bands, and rock got heavier and more aggressive, which might put off some audiences, specially sclerotic Boomers. However if, as the OP suggests, bands stop being lazy, dig through their 80s and 90s tunes, they may find some stuff that will work in live settings. It could be done it just might take some work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sascha Erni and danosix
#113
smogg said:
You make a valid point. Wagon Wheel was released in 2013, ergo modern tune. Mustang Sally released in 1965 and became pop hit in 1966. Sally is close to 20 years older than the average age of my audiences. it is extremely rare if they request a tune from the sixties or seventies.
Click to expand...
There are always current tunes people want to hear - that only emphasizes the timelessness of the "classics" - they stay, I ain't playing Achy Breaky Heart anymore and I'll bet Wagon Wheel will be forgotten in a year or two too. Doesn't mean don't do it - top 10/40 tunes are a great way to break up the monotony and give the audience what they want.
 
#114
Let's also consider this for a second:
Everyone bemoans that "young people" don't care about music like they used to, they don't go out to live shows like they used to, etc. Could that in anyway be because live bands have been twanging away at the same tired old crap for 30 years and younger audiences are put out by it? Why would they be interested in that cover of "Good Vibrations" you do when they can ignore it when their grandparents are listening to it.
Try to innovate a little! Take a song that doesn't really have a guitar, bass, drums arrangement and make it one.
You can do that work and try to find a way to remain a viable form of entertainment, or be relegated to the fascination of a small audience that likes "retro" stuff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sascha Erni and danosix
#115
socialleper said:
The Boomers solidly and vociferously rejected the music of their parents, but when their children do the same thing they tell them "you don't know good music."
Click to expand...
Totally off topic but I've been saying this for some time. Many of that generation think that there's was the greatest generation, well isn't that what their parents called themselves? Get over yourselves, it was a great time in music, but you are just as responsible for commercial music's decline as you are for the "greats" you claim - if they as a generation hadn't settled into middle-age/class complacency and stopped buying anything that wasn't a rehash of their old music, record companies might have continued to be more adventurous and they continued to take risks on things other than Beatles remixes, Elvis best-ofs and safe tween-y bop with nothing in between.
 
#116
Fergie Fulton said:
Mmmmm Does anyone recognise this senario..
"All the bands play the same old songs..why does no-one play something different?" .....comes the cry from all the bars, pubs and clubs.
"That is a great idea, i will form a band and play different songs rather than the same old covers"

So the band is formed and the gigs set up, they even write some originals, and the band plays and after a month or so bookings become less and numbers rather than grow...fall and rhe band gets a rep for being not popular and splits.

"I can't understand it, the band was great, the music was great...but no-one comes along and supports us." says the musicians trying to work out where they went wrong.

"Well that's because you do not play music the audience knows and likes.".... comes the advice from all the bars, pubs and clubs.
Sort of dammed of you do....dammed of you don't.......sometimes its nothing to do with a "lazy band" or musicians......but more to do with lazy audience set in there ways.
Click to expand...

I was in an excellent cover band back in the late 90s that played all over North Jersey. We pushed it with some unusual covers from known bands, did lots of stuff that was popular at the time too, but we definitely mixed in some deeper cuts, stuff you wouldn't normally hear, but from the same artists. When we did that, three people in the back would jump up and cheer and the rest would have blank looks on their faces and go for a beer. I called it the "Homer Simpson Complex" after the episode where Bachman Turner Overdrive befriended Homer, but at their live shows all Homer wanted to hear were the choruses to "Takin' Care of Business" and "Ain't Seen Nothin' Yet". He would boo even the rest of the songs, and when they announced that they were going to play a new song, he would scream "Play Takin' Care of Business!!" They yelled back, "But Homer, we just played that", and he waved his fist and yelled back "PLAY IT!" So they played the song over and over again to the delight of the Homer Simpsons in the crowd.

I have come to discover that there are a lot of Homer Simpsons out there. They want to hear songs over and over again that, if I had the choice, would prefer never to hear again if I live to be 120. So anyway, we started hearing complaints from booking agents and club owners that we played old, out of date music from the 60s and 70s and we needed to update our set. This is despite the fact that 75 or 80% of our set was made up of music that was on the radio at the time. We'd throw in "Good Times, Bad Times", "Day Tripper" and a few others like that...but that was too much. I thought it was the perfect mix to keep both the audience and ourselves happy. I was wrong. The band's happiness is unimportant if you want to gig steadily. Keep pumping out "Takin' Care of Business" and the Homers of the world will be happy and your band will continue to play the circuit. On the other hand you will wish you had chosen some other way to put a few bucks in your pocket.
 
#117
socialleper said:
While witty, there is no basis for this theory. The Boomers solidly and vociferously rejected the music of their parents, but when their children do the same thing they tell them "you don't know good music." That hypocritical dog won't hunt. I get there will never be another Beatles, not because they were that good but because its been done; you can't have an epic shift in a style of music like that more than once. Jimi Hendrix changed the game of guitar playing, but is NOT the be all end of all guitar players. I'll go a step further and say Jaco was a very good bass player, but he isn't the end of the bass nor has he set the tone for all bass playing.
Here's the deal: When you are a certain age, the music you hear at that age when you are "growing up" is what is good to you. So no, it isn't that my music sucks, you really are old.

As to how this relates to the OP, there is a real problem with the fact newer music doesn't reach all audiences. After the initial break of "rock" into the mainstream it diversified into increasingly niche groups. Its easy to agree on the Zeppelin, the Beatles, the Who, Rolling Stones, Kinks, Heart, etc because by today's standards they are vanilla, simple, and easy listening. Pop became more electronic, which doesn't work well for live bands, and rock got heavier and more aggressive, which might put off some audiences, specially sclerotic Boomers. However if, as the OP suggests, bands stop being lazy, dig through their 80s and 90s tunes, they may find some stuff that will work in live settings. It could be done it just might take some work.
Click to expand...

I didn't like my parents' music much. It was radically different from mine. Their music had no electric guitars, the drums were pretty light in the mix; no big thudding kick drum; and it was, in no way, rock and roll.

I liked some of it! I liked the same Classical music they did, and I liked quite a bit of the big band era swing. That being said, I didn't really RELATE to it.

Now as far as I can tell, the music the kids listen to now is almost EXACTLY the same as what I listened to, with a few exceptions.

MOST modern country sounds like Classic Rock, for the most part; the difference usually being the style of the vocals, and the lyrical content.

MOST modern rock sounds like Classic Rock, for the most part; the difference usually being more lows in the low end (drop tunings,) fatter bottom end in the guitars, and oftentimes a little less melodic, or more droning.

Rap is a lot different. It sometimes has samples of Classic Rock, but more often steals from Stevie Wonder, or other classic R&B, and has a major difference, in that the vocals are spoken word. It still has big bass and drums, and has as many similarities as differences from "my" music.

Many times, kids tell me I will just love a new band, and I listen to that band, and that band sounds exactly like a band I already listen to. There is not a lot new in the world of Rock Music, especially POPULAR Rock Music.

So the dog hunts a little bit. You can't love Oasis, and not like anything by the Beatles. (I realize that Oasis were 90's, but this was the same deal back then.

I don't remember the name of the band, but I listened to them, and thought I was listening to a lost album by T. Rex.

In the eighties, many bands sounded just like Bowie. Many hard rock bands sounded a lot like Led Zeppelin. Even more sounded like Van Halen.

INXS and Billy Idol sounded a good bit like the Doors, etc. etc. etc.

And that's why we play the songs we play. They are good rock songs, and we play them with enthusiasm, and our audience, be they old like us, getting old, or young, often respond well. I posted a video a few weeks ago that showed a bunch of 20 somethings being absolutely amazed by Voodoo Child (slight return.)

I don't tell anyone "you don't know good music," or honestly believe ANYONE'S music "sucks."

If you like it, it is getting through to someone, so good for it, and good for you.

But I haven't decided to give up on playing the music I love just yet, and I would feel damn silly trying to play the newest thing at my age. If I don't relate to it, I'm not playing it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sascha Erni, oldandbold, Imaginary Pony and 1 other person
#118
socialleper said:
Let's also consider this for a second:
Everyone bemoans that "young people" don't care about music like they used to, they don't go out to live shows like they used to, etc. Could that in anyway be because live bands have been twanging away at the same tired old crap for 30 years and younger audiences are put out by it? Why would they be interested in that cover of "Good Vibrations" you do when they can ignore it when their grandparents are listening to it.
Try to innovate a little! Take a song that doesn't really have a guitar, bass, drums arrangement and make it one.
You can do that work and try to find a way to remain a viable form of entertainment, or be relegated to the fascination of a small audience that likes "retro" stuff.
Click to expand...
I agree with everything you say except this: it is the people HIRING the bands that determine what gets put in front of their audiences, not the bands and most of them either think/know their audiences want old crap or that's what they like - you'd be surprized how many bookers book what they like with no regards to what their audiences' like or ar willing to pay to see. I've said elsewhere that several community theatres my old Elvis band played in stopped booking us (or letting us book the theatre) because they changed booking agents and the new ones didn't like Elvis. This was in theatres we had filled on numerous occasions with quicker and more slaes each time we played so it wasn't that they didn't like US they just didn't have any business sense or vision. Similarly, most bar owners are old guys so they don't want to hire the young guys doing originals or contemporary music because it ain't the baby boomer music they listen to.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back